Edited by Ilaria Caloi & Charlotte Langohr

š a c t e s š d e š c o l l o q u e s š

Technology in Crisis

Technological changes in ceramic production during periods of trouble

Edited by Ilaria Caloi & Charlotte Langohr

Technological changes in ceramic production

during periods of trouble

Technological changes in ceramic production during periods of trouble

Edited by Ilaria Caloi & Charlotte Langohr

ISBN : 978-2-87558-749-7

ISBN pour la version numérique (pdf) : 978-2-87558-750-3 Imprimé en Belgique par CIACO scrl – n° d’imprimeur : 97673 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, adapted or translated, in any form or by any means, in any country, without the prior permission of Presses universitaires de Louvain

Graphic design: Marie-Hélène Grégoire

Cover image: Translated Vase_2007 TVW 5 (detail) photo: Wooil Kim

© Yeesookyung

Volume set in Adobe InDesign CS6 by Nicolas Kress Distribution: www.i6doc.com, on-line university publishers Available on order from bookshops or at

Diffusion universitaire CIACO (University Distributors) Grand-Rue, 2/14

1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Tel: +32 10 47 33 78

Fax: +32 10 45 73 50 [email protected] Distributor in France:

Librairie Wallonie-Bruxelles

46 rue Quincampoix

75004 Paris, France

Tel: +33 1 42 71 58 03

Fax: +33 1 42 71 58 09

[email protected]

1. Technological changes in ceramic production during periods of trouble 21 Methodological approaches and matters of scale

Ilaria Caloi Charlotte Langohr

2. Firing structures and transition periods in Rajasthan (India, 2005-2015) 35 Unstable choices before definitive selection

Valentine Roux Simone Gabbriellini

3. Craft behaviours during a period of transformations 45

The introduction and adoption of the potter’s wheel in Central Greece during Early Bronze Age

Maria Choleva

4. The times they are A-changin’ 75

Pottery production and technological change at Mochlos in the earlier Prepalatial period

Thomas M. Brogan

Luke Kaiser Eleni Nodarou

5. Recognising conflict and crisis in prehistoric societies 93

The contribution of pottery

Ina Berg

6. Change and continuity in the pottery tradition at Kontopigado, Alimos, during the late 13^th

and the early 12^th c. BC 111

Elina Kardamaki

Konstantina Kaza-Papageorgiou

7. Hand-made pottery groups in Mainland Greece during the 13^th and 12^th c. BC as a sign of

economic crisis? 139

Bartłomiej Lis

8. The troubled century? 151

Potting practices and socio-political changes at Mitrou, East Lokris, between the end of the 14^th and the beginning of the 12^th c. BC

Salvatore Vitale

9. From the hand to the wheel 177

Revisiting the transformations of the Late Cypriot ceramic industry of finewares during the 13^th- to-12^th c. BC transition

Artemis Georgiou

10. Local and imported pottery in the Southern Levant during the 13^th-12^th c. BC 201 Exploring through the ‘crisis’ years

David Ben-Shlomo

11. Crisis years and pottery systems 217

An overview of the Italian Late Bronze Age

Marco Bettelli

Elisabetta Borgna

Sara T. Levi

Fig. 2.1 The different firing structures used by the potters in Pachpadra: (top) open multiple-hearth circular firings, (middle) enclosed multiple hearts circular firing, (bottom) vertical updraft

kiln (©Valentine Roux) 37

Tab. 2.1 Number of lineages and households per clan within the two sub-castes of the town of

Pachapdra: the Bandas and Purubiyas 38

Fig. 2.2 Distribution of the firing structures per sub-caste (Banda and Purubiya) 38

Fig. 2.3 Distribution of the firing structures per gotrā (clan) 39

Fig. 2.4 Evolutionary curves of the open firing, the enclosed firing and the kiln (from 1994 to 2015) 40 Fig. 2.5 Adoption times of the kiln in Pachpadra according to sub-castes (Purubiya, Banda). The

x-axis represents time, the y-axis represents the cumulative relative frequencies of potters that have adopted, in the range 0 (nobody) to 1 (everybody). Each dot represents, for a specific time period (x-axis), the cumulative relative frequency of potters (y-axis) that have adopted

the innovation 40

Tab. 2.2 Correlation coefficient (QAP) between the kinship and diffusion networks, and between the advice and kinship networks (QAP is a coefficient that measures the relations between two

different matrices; p is the correlation’s statistical value, significant when < 0.005) 41 Fig. 3.1 Sites preserving EBA II wheel-made pottery (by the author) 46 Fig. 3.2 Sites preserving EBA III wheel-made pottery (by the author) 48 Fig. 3.3 The four wheel-coiling methods (after Roux & Courty 1998: fig. 1, table 1) 49 Fig. 3.4 The main wheel-made repertoire at EB 2 Lefkandi (photos by the author) 51 Fig. 3.5 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 during late EBA II (photos by the author) 52 Fig. 3.6 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 (EBA II): a) rilling and

grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints in section (horizontal axis); (c) wiped upper surface by RKE (above), turned lower surface (below)

(photos by the author) 52

Fig. 3.7 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.2 during late EBA II (photos by the author) 53 Fig. 3.8 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.2 (late EBA II): a) irregular

micro-relief and horizontal striations running around the internal face, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 2; (b) coil joints in section (vertical axis); (c) striations due to the

wiping by RKE (above), covered by the smoothing of the surface (below) (photos by the author) 53 Fig. 3.9 Distribution of wheel-based chaînes opératoires during late EBA II at Lefkandi (by the author) 54 Fig. 3.10 Distribution of wheel-made pottery over the three EBA II-III phases at Lefkandi (by the

author, based on Spencer 2007) 55

Fig. 3.11 The main wheel-made repertoire at EBA III Lefkandi (photos by the author) 56

Fig. 3.12 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 during EBA III (photos by the author) 56

Fig. 3.13 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.1 (EBA III): a) rilling and grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints in section (horizontal axis); (c) wiped upper surface by RKE (above), smoothed lower surface (below)

(photos by the author) 57

Fig. 3.14 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.3 during EBA III (photos by the author) 57 Fig. 3.15 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Lef/CO.3 (EBA III): a) rilling and

grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints in section (horizontal axis); (c) striations due to the wiping by RKE (above), covered by burnished

surface (below) (photos by the author) 58

Fig. 3.16 Distribution of wheel-based chaînes opératoires during EBA III at Lefkandi (by the author) 58 Fig. 3.17 The main wheel-typology at late EBA II Pefkakia (photos by the author) 59 Fig. 3.18 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.1 during EBA II at Pefkakia (photos by

the author) 60

Fig. 3.19 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.1 at Pefkakia: a) rilling and grooves, indicative of the wheel-coiling Method 3 (internal face); (b) Coil joints on the inside of a depas base; (c) wiped upper surface by RKE (above), turned lower surface (below)

(photos by the author) 60

Fig. 3.20 Similar diagnostic macro-features of two wheel-fashioned shallow bowls from Pefkakia and

Lefkandi (photos by the author) 61

Fig. 3.21 Distribution of wheel-made pottery over the four EBA II-III phases of Pefkakia (by the author) 62 Fig. 3.22 The main wheel-made repertoire at EBA III Pefkakia (photos by the author) 63 Fig. 3.23 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.2 during EBA III (photos by the author) 63 Fig. 3.24 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.2 (a) irregular micro-relief and

horizontal striations running around the internal face; (b) coil joint in section (vertical axis);

(c) striations due to the wiping by RKE (above), covered by smoothed surface (below)

(photos by the author) 64

Fig. 3.25 The main operations of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.3 during EBA III (photos by the author) 64 Fig. 3.26 Diagnostic macro-features of the chaîne opératoire Pef/CO.3: (a) irregular micro-relief

and horizontal striations running around the internal face; (b) coil joint in section (vertical axis); (c) striations due to the wiping by RKE (above), covered by burnished surface (below)

(photos by the author) 65

Fig. 3.27 Distribution of wheel-based chaînes opératoires during EBA III Pefkakia (by the author) 65 Fig. 4.1 Plan of the Prepalatial cemetery at Mochlos after 2012 (D. Faulmann) 76 Fig. 4.2 Section through Trench 97/9825 marking the Prepalatial phases (M. Eaby & D. Faulmann) 77 Fig. 4.3 Phase 1a. Fabric 1. Local metamorphic fabric (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 77

Fig. 4.4 EM I Cooking dish with a pierced rim (P12210) (L. Bonga) 78

Fig. 4.5 Jar (P12208) (L. Bonga) 78

Fig. 4.6 Phase 1a. Fabric 2. (Local?) metamorphic fabric with biotite mica (XPL, x50) (E. Nodarou) 79

Fig. 4.7 Jar jandle (P12203) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 79

Fig. 4.8 Cooking dish with pierced rim (P11177) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 80

Fig. 4.9 Kampos-group bottle (P12221) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 80

Fig. 4.10 Goblet (P 12238) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 81

Fig. 4.11 Calcite-tempered fabric (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 81

Fig. 4.12 Jar with a lug handle (P12220) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 82

Fig. 4.13 Micaceous fabric (imported) (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 82

Fig. 4.14 Jar (P12251) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 83

Fig. 4.15 Bowl (P12270) (L. Bonga) 83

Fig. 4.16 Fabric with granitic-dioritic inclusions (XPL, x25) (E. Nodarou) 84

Fig. 4.17 Cooking dish (P11165) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 84

Fig. 4.18 Jug (P11167) (L. Bonga) 84

Fig. 4.19 Jar (P12284) (L. Bonga) 85

Fig. 4.20 Jug (P12261) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 85

Fig. 4.21 Cup (P12309) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 86

Fig. 4.22 Cooking dish (P12296) (L. Bonga) 86

Fig. 4.23 Tripod cooking pot (P12307) (L. Bonga) 86

Fig. 4.24 Jug (P9949) (Ch. Papanikolopoulos) 86

Tab. 5.1 Taos District, Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Changes in pottery and settlement patterns

(based on Fowles et alii 2007) 96

Tab. 5.2 Development of ceramic variables through time (by the author) 102 Tab. 5.3 Development of dominant forming technique at Phylakopi (all local fabrics; Minoanising

shapes in bold; hand = hand-made; wheel = wheel-made; hand and wheel = equal proportions

of hand-made and wheel-made) (by the author) 104

Fig. 5.1 Conceptualising the pottery production at Phylakopi (by the author) 105 Fig. 6.1 Map of Attica in LH IIIB with Kontopigado in red (after Privitera 2013 modified by authors) 112 Fig. 6.2 Kontopigado. The installation with the channels (K. Kaza-Papageorgiou) 112 Tab. 6.1 Pottery and building phases in Kontopigado. Destruction/abandonment floors indicated with

red lines (by the authors) 113

Fig. 6.3 Characteristic shapes and fabrics from Kontopigado. Plain jug from the upper level of well 7, workshop installation (LH IIIB2-LH IIIC Early 1) (L. Valsamis) 116 Fig. 6.4 Characteristic shapes and fabrics from Kontopigado. Plain amphora from pit 1 (LH IIIC Early

1), workshop installation (L. Valsamis) 117

Fig. 6.5 Deep bowl of type A from Tiryns. LH IIIB2 Late (E. Kardamaki, R. Tsembera) 118

Fig. 6.6 Rosette deep bowl from Tiryns. LH IIIB2 Late (E. Kardamaki, R. Tsembera) 119

Fig. 6.7 Deep bowl of type B from Tiryns. LH IIIC Early 1 (E. Kardamaki, R. Tsembera) 119

Fig. 6.8 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Solidly painted

deep bowl (E. Kardamaki) 119

Fig. 6.9 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type

A variant (E. Kardamaki) 119

Fig. 6.10 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type

A variant (E. Kardamaki) 120

Fig. 6.11 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type

A variant with monochrome interior (E. Kardamaki) 120

Fig. 6.12 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type A variant with non-canonical decoration (LH IIIB1?) (B. Konnemann) 121 Fig. 6.13 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Deep bowl/

stemmed bowl with wavy band (L. Valsamis) 121

Fig. 6.14 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Monochrome painted deep bowl

(E. Kardamaki) 121

Fig. 6.15 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type A (E.

Kardamaki) 122 Fig. 6.16 Kontopigado, settlement, floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Deep bowl

with wavy band (B. Konnemann) 122

Fig. 6.17 Kontopigado, settlement, exterior dumps. Deep bowl of type A variant with monochrome

interior (LH IIIB2-LH IIIC Early 1) (E. Kardamaki) 122

Fig. 6.18 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Deep bowl of type B (E.

Kardamaki) 122

Fig. 6.19 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Stirrup jar of brown

fabric ware with white slip (overfired?) (L. Valsamis) 123

Fig. 6.20 Kontopigado, pit 1 (LH IIIC Early 1), workshop installation. Closed shape of brown fabric

ware with white slip (Overfired?) (L. Valsamis) 123

Fig. 6.21 Kontopigado, settlement, floor deposit, upper building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Piriform jar

of brown ware with white slip (E. Kardamaki) 124

Fig. 6.22 Kontopigado, settlement, floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Hand-made

collar-necked jar with legs (E. Kardamaki) 125

Fig. 6.23 Percentages of Aeginetan and wheel-made bases from cooking pots in well 7 and pit 1 (by the authors) 126 Fig. 6.24 Percentages of legs from Aeginetan and wheel-made tripod cooking pots in well 7 and pit 1

(by the authors) 126

Fig. 6.25 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level, workshop installation. Aeginetan cooking jar (LH IIIB2

Late) (B. Konnemann) 126

Fig. 6.26 Kontopigado, settlement, floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Aeginetan

tripod cooking pot (E. Kardamaki) 127

Fig. 6.27 Kontopigado, well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Local wheel-made

cooking jug (B. Konnemann) 127

Fig. 6.28 Kontopigado, settlement, exterior dump. Local wheel-made cooking tripod (LH IIIB2 Late-

LH IIIC Early 1) (V. Hachtmann; E. Kardamaki) 127

Fig. 6.29 Kontopigado, well 7 (LH IIIB2 Late), lower level, workshop installation. Local wheel-made

cooking jug (L. Valsamis) 128

Fig. 6.30 Kontopigado, settlement. Local cooking lid (LH IIIB2 Late-LH IIIC Early 1) (E. Kardamaki;

L. Valsamis) 128

Fig. 6.31 Kontopigado, settlement, floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Local

wheel-made cooking pot (V. Hachtmann, E. Kardamaki) 128

Fig. 6.32 Kontopigado, settlement, floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Local

wheel-made cooking pot (V. Hachtmann, E. Kardamaki) 129

Fig. 6.33 Kontopigado, settlement, middle building phase. Cooking installation with cooking pot of Figure 32, and Aeginetan cooking tripod of Figure 26 with other vessels directly on the floor, outside the cooking installation (modified after Kaza-Papageorgiou & Kardamaki 2017: plan 3) 129 Fig. 6.34 Kontopigado. Well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. ‘Industrialʼ vessel

(L. Valsamis) 131

Fig. 6.35 Kontopigado. Well 7, lower level (LH IIIB2 Late), workshop installation. Medium-sized tub

(E. Kardamaki) 131

Fig. 6.36 Kontopigado. Floor deposit, middle building phase (LH IIIC Early 1). Spouted crater with

wavy band (E. Kardamaki) 132

Fig. 6.37 Kontopigado. Well 7, lower level, workshop installation. Spouted crater with horizontal whorl

shells (LH IIIB2 Late) (B. Konnemann) 133

Fig. 7.1 Map of Greece showing the location of sites discussed in the text (by the author) 141 Fig. 7.2 Frantzis. Hand-made and burnished cooking pots (after Karantzali 2013: fig. 10: 54-55 and

54-55b) 142 Fig. 7.3 Pefkakia. Hand-made and burnished cooking pot (after Batziou-Efstathiou 2015: fig. 46 [BE

50895]) 142 Fig. 7.4 Palace of Pylos. Hand-made jug (after Blegen & Rawson 1966: figs 343 and 370 [no. 829]) 143 Fig. 7.5 Mitrou. LH IIIB2 deposit. Hand-made tripods cooking pots (LP782-030-018 and LP782-033-

028) (by the author, courtesy of Mitrou Archaeological Project) 143 Fig. 7.6 Chania near Mycenae. LH IIIB deposit. Hand-made piriform jar (after Palaiologou 2015: 65-

66, fig. 16 [BE 27338]) 144

Fig. 8.1 Map showing the location of Mitrou and other important Central Greek sites mentioned in the

text (B. Lis & T. Ross) 152

Fig. 8.2 Mitrou, NW excavation sector, MH to LH IIIB2 Late period plan (G. Bianco & A. Van de

Moortel) 156 Fig. 8.3 Mitrou, NE excavation sector, MH to LH IIIB2 Late period plan (G. Bianco & A. Van de

Moortel) 157 Fig. 8.4 Mitrou, NE excavation sector, section P-P east-west looking north, Trenches LM784, LM783,

and LN783 (G. Bianco & A. Van de Moortel) 158

Tab. 8.1 Typology of Mitrou deposits based on site formation processes (by the author) 158 Fig. 8.5 Clay preparation practices in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: Mitrou’s fine fabrics; c-d:

Mitrou’s medium-coarse fabrics (S. Vitale) 159

Tab. 8.2 Correlation between clay preparation, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political history* (by the author) 160 Fig. 8.6 Primary vessel body formation methods in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: Possibly coil-

built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIA2 Early cooking and storage shapes; c: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIA alabastron; d: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIA2 Early closed shape; e: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIA2 Early stemmed krater; f: Possibly coil-built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIB2 Late deep semi-globular cup; g:

Combination of coil-built (upper body) and coil-built and wheel-fashioned or wheel-thrown

methods on an LH IIA alabastron (a-b: H. Tsikoulos & S. Vitale; c-g: S. Vitale) 161 Fig. 8.7 Primary vessel body formation methods in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a: Possibly coil-

built and wheel-fashioned LH IIIB2 Late closed shape; b-c: Possibly wheel-thrown LH IIIA2 Early conical cup; d-e: Coil-built and wheel-fashioned or wheel-thrown LH IIIB2 Late closed shapes; f-g: Coil-built and wheel-fashioned or wheel-thrown LH IIIB2 Late open shapes (S.

Vitale) 162 Tab. 8.3 Correlation between forming techniques, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political history* (by

the author) 163

Fig. 8.8 Surface treatments in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: Smoothed LH IIIB2 Late stirrup jars; c: Wiped LH IIIA2 Early kylix; d-e: Burnished LH IIIA2 Early krater and kylix; f:

Polished LH IIIA2 Late one-handled bowl (S. Vitale) 164

Fig. 8.9 Open shapes with patterned- or linear-painted exteriors and monochrome interiors in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a: LH IIIB1 bowl; b-h: LH IIIB2 Late small stemmed krater or large stemmed bowl, deep semi-globular cups, spouted cup, Group A/B deep bowl and ring-based

krater (a, e: M. Rossin & T. Ross; b-d, f-g: T. Ross) 165

Tab. 8.4 Correlation between surface treatments, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political history* (by

the author) 166

Tab. 8.5 Correlation between treatments of open shape interiors, cultural phases, and Mitrou’s political

history* (by the author) 166

Fig. 8.10 Vessels’ secondary formation and finishing practices in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a: LH IIIB1 jug; b, h: LH IIIB2 Late amphora; c: LH IIA alabastron; d: LH IIIA2 Early kylix; e: LH IIIB1 closed shape; f-g: LH IIIB2 Late Group A/B deep bowl and spouted cup (S. Vitale) 167 Fig. 8.11 Examples of complex decoration in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: LH IIA rhyta; c-f: LH

IIIA2 Late kylikes (a-b, d-f: T. Ross; c: B. Konnemann & T. Ross) 168 Fig. 8.12 Local idiosyncrasies in Mitrou’s pottery assemblages. a-b: LH IIIB2 Late Group A deep

bowls with Boeotian Stripe; c: LH IIIB2 Late shallow cup; d: LH IIIB2 Late Group A deep bowl with different patterns on either sides; e: LH IIIB2 Late Group A deep bowl with

inverted U-pattern (a, c-e: T. Ross; b: M. Rossin & T. Ross) 169 Fig. 9.1 Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text (digital data courtesy of the Cyprus

Geological Survey Department, map drafted by the author) 178

Tab. 9.1 Relative and absolute chronological dates for Bronze Age Cyprus (based on Knapp 2013b:

521, Table A2) 178

Fig. 9.2 A White Slip II Ware bowl from Limassol Tomb 19 (after Karageorghis & Violaris 2012: pl.

XIII: 6; courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 181 Fig. 9.3 A Base-ring Ware Y-shaped bowl from Limassol burial feature No. 621/VI: 32 (after

Karageorghis & Violaris 2012: pl. XLIII: 32; courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 181 Fig. 9.4 Base fragment of a Base-ring Ware jug from Maa-Palaeokastro (Courtyard A/32). Flat,

thin base. Visible traces of hand-made manufacture inside (by the author, courtesy of the

Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 183

Fig. 9.5 Shoulder fragment of a Base-ring Ware juglet from Maa-Palaeokastro (1954.FW3.Box1).

Ridge around neckline, squat and globular body. Fingermarks visible inside (by the author,

courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 183

Fig. 9.6 Base fragment of a Base-ring Ware juglet from Maa-Palaeokastro (West of Building II/1).

Flaring ring-base with ridge on the outside. Indications of the use of a turntable for the

vessel’s manufacture (by the author, courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus

Fig. 9.7 A deep bowl from Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b: cat. no. 21: TE III 23) 184 Fig. 9.8 A deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro (by the author, courtesy of the Department of

Antiquities, Cyprus) 184

Fig. 9.9 Fragmentary deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro with pictorial decoration of a bird (by the

author, courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 185

Fig. 9.10 Hemispherical bowl of wheel-made manufacture in White Slip II-Late decoration from

Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b: cat. no. 26: TE III 28) 189 Fig. 9.11 Fragmentary hemispherical bowl with wishbone handle of wheel-made decoration and White

Slip II-Late decoration from Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b: cat. no. 69: TE III 69A) 190 Fig. 9.12 Y-shaped bowl of wheel-made manufacture from Palaepaphos-Evreti (after Georgiou 2016b:

cat. no. 161: TE III 199) 190

Fig. 9.13 Base fragment of a juglet from Palaepaphos-Evreti. Traces of hand-made manufacture visible

inside (after Georgiou 2016b: cat. no. 77: TE VIII 76A) 190

Fig. 9.14 Y-shaped bowl in Plain Wheel-made Ware from the Sanctuary of the Ingot God, Enkomi

(after Courtois 1971: fig. 94:F, inv. no. 16.76; courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) 192 Fig. 10.1 Map of the Southern Levant with sites mentioned in the text (after Ben-Shlomo 2010: fig. 2.1) 201 Fig. 10.2 Main types of Philistine 1 pottery from Tel Ashdod and Tel Miqne-Ekron (courtesy of T.

Dothan; ©Israel Exploration Society) 205

Fig. 10.3 The pottery kiln from Tell Jemmeh (Victor Krantz; ©Smithsonian Institution) 206 Fig. 10.4 Local Canaanite pottery types from Tell Miqne-Ekron Field III, Strata VII-VI (12

-early 11

c. BC) (S. Gitin; ©Tel Miqne Excavation) 208

Fig. 10.5 Shaping techniques of Bronze and Iron Age pottery from Tell es-Safi: 1) coils on an EB III platter; 2) faint coils on an MB IIB bowl; 3) distinct coils on an LB II biconical krater; 4) coils and scraping on an LB II lamp; 5) coils on an Iron I hemispherical bowl; 6) distinct coils on an Iron I Philistine ‘feeding bottle’ jug; 7) parallels coils on an Iron IIA jug; 8) parallel

coils on an Iron IIA stand; 9) single coil on an Iron IIA chalice (by the author) 210

Fig. 10.6 Petrographic groups of the EB III-Iron II pottery from Tell es-Safi (by the author) 211

Fig. 10.7 Breakdown of Tell es-Safi functional classes of pottery according to petrographic groups (by

the author) 211

Fig. 11.1 a. Italy and the Central Mediterranean with the zones and sites mentioned in the text:

Castellieri (horizontal strokes); Terramare (oblique strokes); Southern Tyrrhenian and Aeolian Islands (circle). 1. Fondo Paviani; 2. Afragola; 3. Broglio di Trebisacce; 4. Rocavecchia; 5.

Lipari; b. Terramare and Terramare-like pottery from the Po Plain and peninsular Italy (1.

Casinalbo, after Cardarelli 2014: fig. 217, T. 40; 2-3, 5-6. Rocavecchia, after Pagliara et alii 2007: fig. 12:IV.12; 2008: respectively figs 12:11; 13C:26; 11:9; 4. Gricignano, after Albore

Livadie et alii 2004: fig. 3A:9) 218

Fig. 11.2 Number of settlements in Terramare area according to different phases of the Bronze Age

(based on Bettelli et alii 2004; Cardarelli 2009) 219

Fig. 11.3 Total extension of settlements in Terramare area according to different phases of the Bronze

Age (based on Bettelli et alii 2004; Cardarelli 2009) 219

Fig. 11.4 Estimated population in Terramare area according to different phases of the Bronze Age

(based on Bettelli et alii 2004; Cardarelli 2009) 220

Fig. 11.5 a. The lower Tyrrhenian and the Aeolian Islands during MBA3, Thapsos-Milazzese period (left) and RBA, Ausonian I period (right) (A. Di Renzoni); b. The acropolis of Lipari during Milazzese (dark grey) and Ausonian I (light grey) periods (after Bernabò Brea & Cavalier 1980; drawing by A. Di Renzoni); c. Thapsos-Milazzese pottery from the Aeolian Islands and Tropea promontory (after Adamo et alii 1999: fig. 9: 179, 187; Pacciarelli 2001: fig. 13:3, 6-7, 10); d. Ausonian I pottery from the Tropea promontory (after Pacciarelli 2001: fig. 17:1-

2, 4, 6, 9, 11) 222

Fig. 11.6 a. Large bowls from different Bronze Age sites of the Friuli region (North-Eastern Italy).

a1: Canale Anfora, next to Aquileia (Udine), MBA (©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria, University of Udine; G. Merlatti); a2: Pozzuolo-Braida Roggia (Udine), RBA 2 (after Borgna 1994: 121 no. 144; fig. 47); a3: Variano (Udine), FBA (©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria, University of Udine; G. Merlatti). b. Necked globular jars from different Bronze Age sites of the Friuli region and Venezia Giulia. b1: Canale Anfora, MBA/RBA 1 (©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria, University of Udine; G. Merlatti); b2: Monte Grisa (Trieste), RBA (after Moretti et alii 1978: fig. 1.3); b3: Pozzuolo-Braida Roggia (Udine), RBA 2 (after Borgna 1994: 102, no. 98, fig. 38). c. Carinated vessels from different Bronze Age sites of Friuli. c1: Porpetto (Udine), MBA (after Vitri 1991b: 149, fig. 32, 2); c2: Udine, RBA 1(?) (after Vitri et alii 1991: fig. 3.13); c3: Pozzuolo (Udine), RBA 2 /FBA (after Cassola Guida et alii 2004: 79, fig. 1B 2). d. Carinated cups/bowls from different Bronze Age sites of Friuli: d1: Canale Anfora, MBA/RBA (©Laboratorio di Preistoria e Protostoria, University of Udine; G. Merlatti); d2: Udine, RBA (after Vitri et alii 1991: fig. 3.4); d3:

Rividischia (Udine), RBA 2 (after Lambertini & Tasca 2006: 133, fig. 21); d4: Castions di

Strada (Udine), FBA 1 (after Cassola Guida et alii 2004: fig. 5A 1) 226 Fig. 11.7 1-2. Italo-Mycenaean pottery from Broglio di Trebisacce (after Vagnetti 1984: pls 46.3,

49.3); 3. Italo-Myceanean or ‘early Protogeometric’ vessel from Broglio di Trebisacce (after Vagnetti & Panichelli 1994: pl. 77.1); 4. Dolio from Rocavecchia (after Guglielmino 1999:

fig. 3); 5. Protogeometric pottery from Lipari-Ausonian I (after Bernabò Brea & Cavalier

1980: pl. CXCIV:2, 4, not to scale), 6-8. Santa Maria di Leuca (after Orlando 1990: figs 30-32) 229

Methodological approaches and matters of scale

Ilaria Caloi Charlotte Langohr

1. General introduction

Pottery technology is a social product through which it is possible to explore cultural choices (Lemonnier 1993).

Technological choices are the outcome of socially understood ways of proceeding (Gosselain 2000; Gosselain

& Livingstone Smith 2005). Recent studies have highlighted that technological change may result from people who intentionally and persistently choose a new pattern and who desire to achieve specific social goals (Arnold et alii 2008). For example, in contemporary multi-ethnic Niger, potters “[…] exploit techniques in order to position themselves socially or economically, and occasionally, build new identities […]” (Gosselain 2008: 78).

In the specific framework of archaeological studies on the Mediterranean Bronze Age societies, it has been shown that technical changes in pottery production are best understood when placed in the context of contemporaneous socio-economic developments, and that the conditions and rhythms of these changes are the results of various processes. Among the latter, the adoption of new techniques has been explained in some regions by the growing control of palatial economies on potters’ workshops, as part of a general trend driven by the accumulation of wealth (Iamoni 2015; Rutter 2015; see also the concept of ‘elite-driven declarative learning’ in the adoption of an innovative technology: Knappett 2016).

In the framework of our ARC research project ‘A World in Crisis? Archaeological and Epigraphical Perspectives on the Late Bronze Age (13

c. BC) Mediterranean Systems’ Collapse: a case study approach’ based at UCLouvain (Belgium), we questioned the reliability of archaeological data as crisis indicators. Therefore, following the perspective of archaeological and anthropological works that assess pottery technology as a social product, there is an interest to address the social and cultural aspects of technological change in pottery production in the specific context of crisis and period of trouble. The main goal of such an examination is to detect whether and how technological choices or changes observed in the archaeological ceramic record may reflect periods of disruption, crisis and/or transformation of social, political, economic, and environmental conditions.

When investigating past societies of the Bronze Age Mediterranean, declines in quality and drops in labour

investment in ceramic production (i.e. less accuracy in preparing clay, inferior care in forming vases, less interest

in decoration, etc.) have been interpreted as indices of economic instability and/or political crisis. This is the case

in the Intermediate Bronze Age period (ca. 2200-2000 BC) in the Southern Levant, a troubled time following

the decline of the Early Bronze Age urban era. During this period, previous cities were abandoned and most of

the excavated sites correspond to small agricultural villages. There also seems to be a return to simpler hand-

made techniques in pottery production for assemblages produced at the household level, and a partial, temporary

abandonment of the potter’s wheel (Amiran 1969: 80; Gophna 1992: 144-145; see also Ben-Shlomo, this

volume). While usually indicative of crisis migrations, invasions or population movements may however lead to

contrasting reactions. In some cases, ancient communities may adopt new shapes and techniques, and the spread

of these techniques was triggered by such processes. For instance, in Late Cypriot IIC-IIIA Cyprus (ca. 1325-

1100 BC), pottery assemblages show both new shapes and new manufacturing techniques, including the category

of cooking vessels. These significant changes are understood as new ideological aspects that accompanied

the Mycenaean immigration on the island (Jung 2017). Alternatively, social groups may choose to cling to

traditional manufacturing techniques, in order to maintain and express their group identity despite a new and

more advantageous technological innovation. This was the case on Bronze Age Melos, where local populations seem to have continued producing traditional hand-made pottery in order to demonstrate their identity despite important contacts with, and possibly the arrival of, Minoans who produced wheel-made pottery (Berg 2007; see also Berg, this volume). Finally, elaboration in ceramic shape and decoration, experimentation in clay recipes, and technological change or innovation are often considered to reflect a time of prosperity and flourishing of society. The high-quality Kamares Ware in Crete, the production of which in the Middle Bronze Age matches the acme of the First palaces, is surely an evocative example.

While considering technological changes in modern and contemporary societies, however, different behaviours or types of relations have also been acknowledged. Indeed, artistic innovation and technological experimentation have often occurred in tandem with social, cultural, and economic crises (Gerhardus 1979). The phenomenon of Art Nouveau (1890-1914), for example, which represented a re-evaluation of craftsmanship, claimed to be a reaction of society against the Industrial Revolution. It mirrored a renewed interest in ‘minor arts’ against specialisation and standardisation of industrial products, although it remained in the end a rather elitist phenomenon (Adriaenssens & Steel 2006: 106). Even in contemporary Athens, artistic innovation occurs as a response to crisis: “the hardships and unemployment of the Greek economic collapse have led to a new wave of innovative graffiti, which is both politically aware and socially accepted - making Athens a new Mecca for street artists”

.

Keeping these different case studies and explanatory frameworks in mind, we have delineated different questions for exploring pottery production of Bronze Age Mediterranean societies. Does a crisis or troubled period have, above all, a causal and negative effect on pottery technology, leading to a visibly decreased labour investment in production? Moreover, if a period of crisis/trouble is easily recognisable from other archaeological indicators, can we identify related reactions in the ceramic assemblages, which are conveyed by technological changes or new choices? In contrast, can a crisis or a troubled time represent an impulse for searching for something new and stimulating in terms of technological practices? In this sense, we are urged to explore whether and how a situation of unrest, be it political, economic or environmental, can lead people to take the chance of being more creative and thus more competitive, to adopt new technological innovations or to experiment with technological changes in order to react to crisis conditions. Can we, by exploring whether a tangible relationship exists between technological changes in pottery assemblages and reactions against social, political, economic and environmental troubled situations, observe that similar troubled conditions lead to the same reactions in terms of technological changes/choices?

2. The conference

We proposed to address these questions by bringing together experts in charge of the study of pottery at different Mediterranean sites in order to discuss, confront and contextualise their respective assemblages and associated contexts. The international workshop organised by our Aegis research group at UCLouvain

, on the 18

and 19

of February 2016, tackled the issue of technological changes in Early, Middle and early Late Bronze Age Aegean, but also specifically focused on the 13

c. BC on the Mycenaean mainland, and in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean. The results of this stimulating workshop are presented in this volume, apart from the ethnoarchaeological and comparative approach respectively proposed by Alexandre Livingstone Smith and Ditlef Fredriksen, and the contribution of Simona Todaro, Roberta Mentesana, Peter Day, and Vassilis Kilikoglou on the technological changes observed on Neolithic to Early Minoan I pottery from Phaistos. Their original papers are, however, available as a podcast, as are all other papers

. In the course of this introduction, we will briefly summarise these contributions against the theoretical background of the essential questions we sought to address.

1 The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2014/nov/11/contemporary-graffiti-art-on-the-walls-of-athens-in-pictures.

2 As part of the ARC13/18-049 (concerted research action) of the ‘Académie Louvain’: ‘A World in Crisis?’ Archaeological and Epigraphical Perspectives on the Late Bronze Age (13^th c. BC) Mediterranean Systems’ Collapse: a Case Study Approach (2013- 2018) – crisis.minoan-aegis.net (spokesperson: Jan Driessen).

3 https://uclouvain.be/fr/instituts-recherche/incal/colloque-technology-in-crisis.html.

Our objective in discussing various types of data, contexts and approaches, is to reflect on two issues that we feel are particularly important when addressing the question of technological changes in periods of social trouble and crisis: 1. The methodological approaches we have at our disposal to trace such changes, and 2. Matters of scale, both spatial and temporal.

3. Studies on technological changes

For quite some time, technological changes had been mainly considered the results of evolving traditions and practices towards increasing complexity (that is for example specialisation) and thus as choices on the way to more efficient technologies. In evolutionary terms, the homo economicus is guided by principles of productivity and security (Brumfield & Earle 1987). In this perspective, potters make technical choices based on criteria that have a technological explanation, such as energy efficiency, economies of scale, least efforts, or utility maximisation.

This has often been associated with a macro-scale approach to the history of techniques, and with a ‘diffusionist’

model pointing at the role of intercultural contacts as a triggering force for cultural change, as well as, in our case, for technological changes.

By way of contrast, more recent research based on ethnographic data, notably carried out at the micro-scale of individuals and communities, has instead emphasised that technological changes are above all the outcome of social processes (Gosselain 2000; 2008; Gosselain & Livingstone Smith 2005). Technological change may

“result from individuals intentionally and persistently choosing to follow a new pattern” and “who choose not to follow traditional patterns” (Arnold et alii 2008: 59). Conversely, people may know about a new behaviour or technique but choose not to adopt it, as illustrated by some of the present contributions (see Choleva; Berg, this volume). Likewise, Valentine Roux (2013) has observed in a present-day case study in North-West India that the decision to adopt a new technique depends not just on the existence of relationships between different social groups, but on the nature of the contacts between communities and the social conditions that trigger both individual and social learning. Finally, and most importantly for our discussions, in those instances where new techniques and practices do spread, they may follow different trajectories as we will see in some detail below.

On this very issue, a recent volume devoted to “human mobility and technological transfer” (Kiriatzi & Knappett 2016) gave special attention to “technological perspectives on the processes of human movement”, with the aim of understanding how and why technologies propagate, how they are borrowed, appropriated and transmitted, and whether certain technologies move preferentially into particular contexts.

On the whole, and a fortiori in Prehistoric or traditional societies, a close relationship exists between any utilitarian or craft product and its social milieu (Rice 1987: 461), implying that much attention should be given to the social context that encourages or discourages change. This being said, because of the conservative character of pottery production traditions, and especially shaping techniques, and since the contexts of production between distinct social groups are much diversified, technological changes are particularly difficult to trace in the archaeological ceramic record and even more difficult to interpret. In the words of Olivier Gosselain, who advocates for a dynamic approach to both transmission and appropriation processes in potting practices, “there exists an inherent tension […] between a desire to maintain and reproduce the link with those from whom the knowledge was initially acquired, and the unavoidable adjustments imposed by the social and economic contexts within which individuals carry the craft throughout their life trajectory” (Gosselain 2011: 223).

For archaeologists, these observations lead to a main point. Considering that technical choices are not only driven by rational choices but by also by specific social trajectories, it is a matter of context to understand how and under which conditions changes in ceramic technological practices occur. Consequently, a possible bias in our analyses depends on the degree of precision with which we can approach the social and technological context of production of well-defined cultural groups on the basis of our archaeological data.

This issue forces us to address the matter of scales in our inquiry. In a paper by Carl Knappett & Sander van der Leeuw on a developmental approach to ancient innovation, the authors start with the observation that

“archaeology is uniquely placed to observe some of the most profound socio-cultural changes in humanity’s

deep history”, being able to “assemble macro-scale data”, which eventually bring to light very widespread

changes (Knappett & Van der Leeuw 2014: 65). As they put it, these profound, macro-scale transformations

“are ultimately all closely related to micro-scale practices too, as individuals altered their daily routines, making subtle changes, the consequences of which they could hardly have foreseen” (Knappett & Van der Leeuw 2014:

65). Advocating the challenge of articulating these seemingly quite distinct scales they argue for the need of a meso-scale approach to archaeological data, which, in the particular case of pottery traditions and technological change, may mobilise the concept of communities of practices. This approach supports that “learning takes place in, and is deeply connected to, specific social settings” (Knappett & Van der Leeuw 2014: 69). In this way, it prompts us to consider the transmission processes and potting practices from a dynamic perspective, but also infers that skill and knowledge acquisition goes along with the development of group identity, since, through the process of learning, one increases his/her integration in a community (Gosselain 2011: 219). Such an approach can eventually help archaeologists to think across different scales, from the micro-scale of potting practices to the macro-scale of cultural evolution.

With this perspective in mind, i.e. that promoting a meso-scale approach to archaeological data enables a more comprehensive understanding of the very different trajectories of technological changes in ancient societies, as archaeologists we are invited to pay attention to the method used in the various works presented in this volume to outline or characterise ancient communities of practices, that is, understanding technical traditions as both individual and social processes.

3.1. Social/political/economic/environmental mutation and technological change Moving to the contexts of crisis and the questions of social, political, economic or environmental transformations and their impact on pottery production, our main questions in preparing this volume were the following:

- Can technological changes observed in the archaeological ceramic record reflect periods of crisis and/or transformation of social, political, economic, and environmental conditions?

- And are the specific nature and context of these changes indicative for a certain type or degree of social crisis or transformation?

It may be assumed that a period of unrest or social upheaval has an impact on the modes of pottery production and distribution. This could imply a reduction in the production output, a simplification of the typological and/or stylistic repertoire, but also perhaps a decrease in workspace and a change in demand and distribution patterns (Rice 1987: 454), all effects that are more or less detectable in the archaeological record. Significant transformations of technological practices could, however, follow a less straightforward chain of events. Here, we may first draw upon or find inspiration in general models developed in fields outside archaeology, before coming back to the observable data in our various archaeological contexts.

In order to qualify the nature and dynamic process of change in cultural practices, studies by Roux (2010;

2013) and Courty (Roux & Courty 2013) have differentiated change as continuous and discontinuous. This may be transposed to technological practices so that a technological change can be defined as a continuous and discontinuous process. Confronted with archaeological data and contexts, this distinction may ultimately help us to dissociate different degrees of transformations in social systems and to define how deeply social structures may have been affected by disruptive events.

A change is said to be continuous when it concerns one technical trait and when “there is continuous social learning between generations and among peers” in a social group (Roux & Courty 2013: 189). This signals circumstantial events, occurring at the level of middle or short-term history, for example, the borrowing and adoption of a more efficient exogenous instrument within a socially homogenous context.

On the contrary, a change is discontinuous when “there is a complete cessation of transmission” (Roux &

Courty 2013: 189) and the change concerns the entire technical system. This includes a complete arsenal of

techniques, instruments, skills, knowledge and representations. Such a major discontinuity is indicative of deep

mutations, which affect the societal structure of a population as well as the long-term history, and which may

reasonably be qualified as a ‘crisis’.

In short, in characterising discontinuous change in social and event-based terms, and a complete cessation of transmission in particular, at least two kinds of scenarios may occur. For each situation, we can suggest a corresponding archaeological context of ‘crisis’, which may be a potential ‘activator’ of a discontinuous technological change.

In the first scenario, a discontinuous technological change may occur when the transmission units disappear and are replaced. In historical terms, this means that the population is moved in some way, such as in the case of invasion or migration, creating a potential for change.

This is the case, for example, in the Southern Levant at the beginning of the second millennium BC, where ceramic assemblages are characterised by the combined arrival of new forms and the wheel-coiling technique.

This appears in the first phases and “is so widely disseminated that it seems to be adopted more or less instantly”

(Roux 2013: 320). In this Southern Levantine context, this major discontinuous technological change is explained by the arrival of new groups from the North, who were the main agents for the emergence of new settlements and the construction of monumental buildings.

In the second scenario, the transmission units correspond to social or institutional components that disappear.

In this case, the disappearance of these structures, induced by the failure or collapse of a political system, may trigger the emergence of new ones, generating a potential for change (Roux 2010). This is the case on Crete at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, when Middle Minoan III early ceramic production is characterised by poorly manufactured and less accurately decorated vases. Assessing this decline in pottery production Aleydis Van de Moortel (2002) has explained it as a consequence of the political and economic instability after the destruction of the First Minoan palaces (see also Girella 2010).

Assuming that in periods of crisis/unrest/instability the occurrence of a discontinuous technological change is a possibility, we would expect the introduction of new technological lineages, which break with tradition.

With the very topic of the present volume in mind, we think that the real challenge for archaeologists is first to properly assess the effective occurrence of a technological change within the ceramic assemblages. This involves an agreement on some empirical methods that have demonstrated their reliability in assessing the degree of technological change (i.e. it concerns only one technical trait vs. it relates to the entire technical system). Only then would we be able to consider and interpret its possible causes, based on the distinction between a technological change connected to local historical dynamics – a continuous change – vs. that one related to a major historical and/or social change.

To that end, the consideration of local contextual data combined with a fine-tuned stratigraphic resolution as well as issues of scales considering intra- and interregional comparisons is crucial. This is precisely what the different contributors to this volume have endeavoured to achieve. The main result of these varied efforts, related to disparate case studies, is that a discontinuous technological change can properly be recognised and addressed in the case of the adoption of the potter’s wheel in Central Greece during the Early Bronze Age (hereafter EBA) (Choleva, this volume). The introduction of the potter’s wheel first implied the use of the wheel in combination with the hand-building technique, known as the wheel-fashioning technique. In Central Greece the introduction of this new technique between late EBA II and early EBA III occurred in a time of trouble and change for the Aegean communities. New exchanges and networks did increase the circulation of people, objects, technologies, and ideas throughout the Aegean (Choleva, this volume). It is worth mentioning that, on Crete, the potter’s wheel was introduced later, in the early Middle Bronze Age (Middle Minoan IB phase, i.e. 19

c. BC), a time that corresponds to the emergence of the First Minoan Palaces (Knappett 1999). In the case of Crete, the wheel-fashioning technique also constituted a discontinuous technological change but one following different trajectories. According to recent studies, in North/North-East Crete, this technique went on to be used until the Late Bronze Age, resisting the introduction of new technological innovations (Jeffra 2013; Knappett 2016:

101). On the contrary, in Southern Crete, especially at Phaistos (Caloi 2011) and neighbouring sites (i.e. Haghia

Triada and Kommos: see Baldacci 2013; Van de Moortel 2006), the use of the wheel-fashioning technique did

not prevent the introduction of a new technological change in MM IIA (ca. 18

c. BC), when the wheel-throwing

technique was adopted for the production of specific shapes (e.g. standardised conical cups in Fine Plain Ware)

and wares, like the Polychrome on buff-reserved surface Ware (Caloi 2011: 93-96, fig. 8). The adoption of the wheel-throwing technique, which is a new technical system that entails the exclusive use of the potter’s wheel to throw from a mass of clay, exemplifies another discontinuous technological change. It appears that a new group of potters arrived at Phaistos along with a technological innovation in MM IIA, when the settlement was significantly re-organised, as the monumentalisation of the First Palace demonstrates (Caloi 2018; forthcoming).

In this transitional phase, together with the new group of potters using this innovative technique, local potters continued to use the traditional wheel-fashioning technique to produce the well-known Kamares Ware (Caloi 2018).

3.2. Broadening the horizon

Broadening our horizon of research to contemporary times, i.e. 20

c. AD America, historical literature has suggested that crisis periods are also periods of significant innovation. Two scholars in economics (Joel Mokyr and Naomi Lamoreaux) have documented the rise of important innovations like the incandescent light, the steam turbine, and the transformer precisely during the Long Depression. Economic historian Alexandre Field even recognises the 1930s as the “most technologically progressive” decade of the 20

c. AD

. Current research on the economic and social crisis in the United States has shown that in the last years “American innovation has shifted and become more geographically concentrated. Places like Silicon Valley have seen a steady increase in innovation while older, industrial centres have declined significantly or stagnated”

. And maybe more significant, in terms of actors, Alexandre Field points that the innovation in America “has grown increasingly dependent on non-resident, foreign inventors”, concluding that “anything that might slow the immigration or inflow of foreign inventors – or redirect their inventions and patents – would undoubtedly damage the rate of American innovation.”

These observations are somewhat provocative because of their obvious anachronistic component. However, they prompt us to address the following question, highly relevant for our main issue: if discontinuous technological change is a phenomenon that breaks with tradition, may we hypothesise that this process is more easily or even mainly initiated or activated by people who are not rooted in one community’s traditions? By people who do not know the traditional lineages of the community within which they integrate, such as foreigners?

3.3. What do we mean by foreigners in Ancient times?

By foreigners in Ancient times, we consider people coming from abroad, such as immigrants, refugees, invaders, but also captives. This first type of ‘foreigners’ is discussed in the papers by Maria Choleva, Ina Berg and Artemis Georgiou, in this volume, where the authors illustrate different cases of adoption/rejection of a new technique imported from abroad, attempting to explain local reactions to the technological innovation. The difficulty of identifying involuntary relocation of social groups, or captive potters, on the basis of archaeological material has recently been addressed, using the Italo-Mycenaean pottery from Southern Italy as a case study (Lis 2018). In broader terms, however, and in close consideration of the nature of our archaeological records, a ‘foreigner’ can correspond to a specific social component with distinct cultural traits living inside a broader community, but in a marginal way that can be inferred from the identification of distinctive social practices (Lis 2016). Finally, and most importantly, ‘foreigners’ may also be a specific part of a community that did not experience the aforementioned transmission units (in pottery technological terms, these could be paste recipes or shaping techniques) due to various reasons that may be social, political, or economic. These ‘foreigners’ are best exemplified in the present volume by the agents of change in cooking pot production within the EM IIA community at Mochlos (Crete), discussed by Brogan, Kaiser & Nodarou.

The context of the Eastern Mediterranean in the 13

c. BC offers the best ground for the study of this specific issue of ‘foreignness’ (see especially Lis; Georgiou; Ben-Shlomo; Bettelli, Borgna & Levi, this volume). In a general atmosphere of increasing socio-political unrest, against a backdrop of long-standing and long-distance

4 (http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/07/page/2/)

5 (http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/07/18/innovation-and-economic-crises/)

contacts of different sorts, this century saw the rise of a complex phenomenon, which progressively prompted the reconfiguration of different networks and the movements of social groups. In this particular context, distinguishing locally and non-locally produced ceramic objects in the archaeological record remains a continuing source of debate. In many instances, a given foreign tradition may be imported to area X, may be imitated locally by area X potters, or a group of foreign potters may newly reside in area X and produce their native styles and tradition, all along with the continuation of local practices. Being one of the first to address these questions in the framework of pottery analysis, Prudence Rice asserted that “imitation, innovation, elaboration, material entanglement or syncretism all play roles in these circumstances, but they are difficult to isolate archaeologically” (Rice 1987:

468). She also argued that “there is always a lag between the occurrence of an event and the time when its impact is fully felt, in various alterations to the accustomed pattern”, which made her conclude “that it is thus virtually impossible to correlate ceramic changes one-to-one with significant political, economic, or religious events in a culture”.

The efforts which emerged from the broad range of studies and approaches represented by the different contributors in this volume allows an elaboration on these different issues but also a determination of their limits, challenging Rice’s somewhat pessimistic conclusion.

4. Summary of the contributions

This book comprises the written versions of ten papers delivered at the invited international workshop ‘TIC:

Technology in Crisis. Technological changes in ceramic production during periods of trouble’ organised in

February 2016. The order of the contributions follows different topics and issues:

1. Technological changes in periods of trouble and mutation: comparative and ethnoarchaeological approach: Valentine Roux & Simone Gabbriellini

2. Technological changes in periods of trouble and mutation: Early, Middle and early Late Bronze Age Aegean: Maria Choleva; Thomas M. Brogan, Luke Kaiser & Eleni Nodarou; Ina Berg

3. Technological changes in periods of trouble and mutation: 13^th c. BC Mediterranean:

a. Mainland Greece: Elina Kardamaki & Konstantina Kaza-Papageorgiou; Bartłomiej Lis; Salvatore

Vitale;

b. Eastern Mediterranean: Artemis Georgiou; David Ben-Shlomo

c. Western Mediterranean: Marco Bettelli, Elisabetta Borgna & Sara Levi.

In the present-day ethnographic case study discussed by Roux & Gabbriellini, the authors deal with a period of transition in firing techniques witnessed by potters working in the town of Pachapdra in Rajasthan, North-West India, where until 1987 the pottery production was in the hands of potters belonging to two different communities, the Muslims and the Hindus. Until that date, the vessels produced, and the technical systems deployed distinctly distinguished these two communities: the Muslims were specialised in producing only culinary vessels using open single-hearth triangular firing structures, while the Hindus only produced storage vessels using open multiple-hearth circular firings. The change in the town of Pachapdra occurred in 1987 when the production was reduced to one shape (a water storage vessel), now manufactured by both communities. On that occasion, the firing structures adopted by the two communities changed. In analysing the variability in the adoption of firing structures, the authors highlight two different patterns: in one case there is a statistical correlation between the kinship and diffusion networks, that means a strong relationship between the advice and kinship networks; on the other hand, kinship ties did not favour the adoption of the kiln. They conclude that, in anthropological terms, periods of transition and disorder “are characterised by the introduction of new traits inside communities in which both the ties between the individuals and the various inventors’ strategies generate a variability in the adoption process with, as a consequence, a strong spatial and temporal variability in cultural traits that does not correspond to the population structure”.

Tackling the issues of technological changes in the framework of the Early, Middle and early Late Bronze

technological innovation, i.e. the potter’s wheel, in Eastern and Central Greece between late EBA II and EBA III. The potter’s wheel was imported from Western Anatolia as a technical system implying the use of the wheel- fashioning technique to produce specific classes of pottery derived from Anatolia (i.e. the Lefkandi I/Kastri group). At Lefkandi, on Euboea (Eastern Greece), the local communities appropriated the use of the potter’s wheel as a new technical system in late EBA II and continued to use it in the successive EBA III phase as a resistant craft practice of Anatolian origin. On the contrary, at late EBA II Pefkakia, in Magnesia (Central Greece), the local communities rejected the new technological innovation and maintained their traditional habitus in forming practices, i.e. the hand-building technique, but adopted the morpho-stylistic features of the new Western Anatolian pottery. Only in EBA III, was the new technical system also transmitted to Pefkakia through the adoption of a new pottery assemblage, which was inspired by the same Anatolian traditions and habits. Since the use of the new technical system was restricted to the manufacture of vessels of Anatolian origin and never those of Helladic traditions, through this practice, one could recognise a strong social and cultural identity, indicative of potters who were trained in the Western Anatolian technological tradition. As indicated by Choleva, the potters at Lefkandi “negotiated their place in the new Helladic socio-cultural milieu by maintaining their Western Anatolian craft behaviours”, while at Pefkakia local potters appropriated the new tool in a successive phase as part of a rooted tradition. Within a historical framework of changes, redefinitions and profound transformations, Choleva suggests that the distinct technical identity underlying the wheel-fashioned pottery was transformed into the means for preserving long-lived cultural meanings and for negotiating social identities.

On Crete, Brogan, Kaiser & Nodarou deal with the first phases of use, i.e. EM I-EM IIA, of the Prepalatial cemetery located on the island of Mochlos, North-Eastern Crete, showing that changes observed in pottery production and consumption can be associated with other significant changes in the local settlement and cemetery.

The most significant change from EM I to EM IIA involves the disappearance of locally produced vases and the adoption of new shapes for cooking vessels (dishes and tripod cooking pots), produced in a new fabric by potters working in the region of Gournia and Priniatikos Pyrgos, in the Mirabello Gulf. This change in cooking habits, usually associated with women’s role in the households, has been explained by the authors as the result of new marriages between the local population and groups from the Mirabello Gulf, in a period of intensification of exchanges between Mochlos and this part of Crete. If this fascinating hypothesis is correct, the ‘foreigners’ are an integrated part of the Mochlos community, epitomised by women importing to Mochlos their own cooking pots and habits. In attempting to define the type of technological change that occurred in EM IIA Mochlos, this could exemplify a discontinuous change, where the transmission units embodied by a social component of the community disappear and are replaced by the emergence of new ones.

In the Cyclades, Berg tackles the change in pottery production at Phylakopi, on the Aegean island of Melos, at the time of the arrival of Minoans, to understand how the cultural change occurred on the island and whether it affected the indigenous ceramic production. She clearly indicates that at Phylakopi the change was continuous and gradual, as the rebuilding of the town in Late Cycladic I (henceforth LC I) did not alter the trajectory of ceramic change. She states: “The rise of Minoan pottery had already been set in motion in the Middle Cycladic period with Cretan imports and the local production of Minoanising handleless cups but gathered greater speed in LC I as Minoan imports decreased and local production of an ever-wider range of Minoanising shapes filled the gap”. It is only the pottery forming techniques that can express the conflict in the society of Phylakopi in LC I, where a clear separation existed between a ‘traditional production’, which utilises hand-made techniques to produce Cycladic shapes with Cycladic surface treatments and motifs, and a ‘Minoanising production’, which imitates Minoan shapes, uses the potter’s wheel and decorates the vessels with Minoan-style designs. The author points that this separation in Melian society clearly expresses a conflict between those who wanted to align themselves with the Minoan culture, which was probably perceived as culturally superior, and those who preferred to continue their own traditional practices and habits.

In both the cases discussed by Choleva and Berg, the introduction of a new technological innovation into a

foreign socio-cultural context produced tensions within the indigenous population. The analysis of the forming

techniques in use has helped us to understand the conflict existing within the local communities who chose to

adopt or reject the new technique. Both at EBA II Lekfkandi and at LC I Phylakopi, the adoption of the new

technological innovations can be interpreted as a tool to negotiate a socio-cultural identity that finds its roots

abroad, in a foreign place. At Lefkandi, this social identity is represented by the technical identity of a practice